Protecting watersheds often relies on collaboration between farmers and conservation or watershed professionals. But the latter often struggle with finding the right messages and methods for communicating with farmers. Fortunately, there is good research that can point us in the right direction about how to start.
When communicating about conservation issues with farmers, it is important to recognize where and how they typically seek out information. Like any group of people, farmers’ information-seeking habits vary from person to person. Several studies have explored where farmers receive information and how these information habits influence on-farm decisions.
Overall, these studies demonstrate that many farmers rely on a variety of information sources, which can vary depending on the topic. We can think of information sources as being the primary messenger or deliverer of information—e.g., other farmers, university extension, or crop advisors.
The Importance of Trust in Information Sources
Studies show farmers weigh information from multiple sources to triangulate decisions. A key determinant of who a farmer listens to is trust.
In one paper, Prokopy et al. (2019) looked at nearly 100 research studies on conservation practice adoption and found that, when farmers actively seek information and when they have high trust in the source, there is a greater likelihood of adoption.
In a companion paper, Ranjan et al. (2019) reviewed qualitative studies of farmer adoption and found that farmers trust other farmers and often seek out information from their peers more than any other source. This finding is consistent throughout studies, including ones that focus on conservation information specifically (Mase et al. 2015) or on farm management in general (Davidson et al. 2015).
When it comes to conservation topics specifically, research indicates farmers generally have higher levels of trust in and influence from traditional resource agencies, such as university extension, local conservation agencies, the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, and other public agencies (Enz 2009; Mase et al. 2015).
That said, compared to the general population, farmers are more likely to be skeptical of any source of information, given that they have more at stake when it comes to making decisions about their operations.
Importantly, for farmers, trust increases with familiarity with the source, a finding that emphasizes the importance of relationships when it comes to acting on information.
To illustrate, at an individual level, a farmer’s preferences for what information they receive from whom can vary. That sense of trustworthiness can be generalized toward a type of information source, such as ag retail or university extension, or it can be more specific to interpersonal relationships.
For example, a study by Stuart et al. (2018) looked at general sources of information about nitrogen management among Midwestern corn farmers and found that, while most farmers looked to private sector sources—such as consultants, agronomists, fertilizer dealers—some producers relied on public sector sources, including university extension.
Yet, regardless of which groups farmers generally trust, this same study showed interpersonal relationships still matter most. For example, while many farmers acknowledged potential conflicts of interest in the information they receive from agricultural retailers, this skepticism dissipated if the farmer had a strong personal relationship with an individual retailer or advisor. In other words, trusted relationships allow farmers to be more comfortable taking production and conservation advice from those selling products.
It might be important to note that education and farm size are not necessarily related to which sources of information farmers rely on (Houser et al. 2019); although these factors are related to the number of sources farmers used.
Communication Channels with the Most Impact
How farmers receive the information, or the communication channel, can also matter for how influential the information will be.
The research shows farmers appreciate field days, where they can see conservation practices in action and network with other farmers (e.g., Pape and Prokopy 2017).
This may come to no surprise among conservation professionals. In fact, conservation practitioners noted the value of such demonstrations from their own experiences in the 2021 Conservation Practitioners Poll, where 76% of respondents indicated field days were effective at promoting conservation practices (Morris et al. 2021).
In a survey of Indiana farmers, MacGowen et al. (2018) also found farmers value workshops and demonstrations, after printed materials and in-person communication with family, friends, and neighbors.
However, when it comes to the effect of field days on conservation practice adoption, a study by Singh et al. (2018) found only a moderate relationship between attending field days and later adopting cover crops, nutrient management practices, and filter strips. This may be a result of a selection bias, meaning producers who attend field days are already more likely to adopt the given practice.
When it comes to field day setup and promotion, MacGowen et al. (2018) found that producers prefer events with moderate durations, such as between one and four hours. Farmers in this study tended to prefer weekday events in the morning, and over a quarter of their sample indicated a willingness to travel more than 50 miles to attend a field day.
A willingness to travel can differ between conservation adopting farmers and non-adopters, however.
In a study of farmers in the Mid-Atlantic, Read et al. (2021) found that non-adopters were more likely to attend events that were close to home and at a convenient time, while conservation adopters were more willing to go out of their way to attend events. They also found non-adopters preferred events focused on production-oriented information, rather than conservation-oriented information, which may have implications for how to design events to reach non-adopters.
The Bottom Line for Farmer Outreach
To summarize what all this research means for you and your outreach, it is first important to recognize there is no one messenger or venue to reach all farmers effectively. Like any group of people, these are individuals with different experiences and preferences.
This requires watershed professionals to use multiple strategies to reach various segments of these key groups.
Farmer most of all want to hear from other farmers about conservation efforts.
Field days, especially, are a valuable venue for connecting adopters and non-adopters, and connecting conservation to other production aspects can draw in non-adopters. These opportunities for peer networking can also be an important source of positive social norms for conservation (a rich topic for another blog!).
Consider too how you can collaborate with the agriculture service industry, given how critical private sector information sources are for many farmers.
Probably most important of all is spending the time to develop individual relationships with farmers to build trust and influence beyond whatever organization you represent.
References
Davidson, E. A., Suddick, E. C., Rice, C. W., & Prokopy, L. S. 2015. More food, low pollution (Mo Fo Lo Po): a grand challenge for the 21st century. Journal of environmental quality, 44(2), 305-311.
Enz, T.L. 2009. Sources of facts and advice for farmer decision-making concerning soil conservation practices in Grant County, Wisconsin. Graduate Theses and Dissertations, Iowa State University.
Houser, M., Marquart-Pyatt, S.T., Denny, R.C.H., Reimer, A., & Stuart, D. 2019. Farmers, information, and nutrient management in the US Midwest. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 74(3): 269-280.
MacGowen, B.J., Singh, A.S., Overstreet, B., O’Donnell, M., Klotz, H., & Prokopy, L.S. 2018. Producers’ opinions on what makes demonstrations effective. Journal of Extension 56(2), Article 9.
Mase, A. S., Babin, N. L., Prokopy, L. S. & Genskow, K. D. 2015. Trust in sources of soil and water quality information: Implications for environmental outreach and education. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association 51, 1656-1666.
Morris, C., Arbuckle J.G., DeLong, C., & Lindahl, C.. 2021. Conservation Practitioner Poll 2021 Summary Report. Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conservation Society.
Pape, A., & Prokopy, L. 2017. Delivering on the potential of formal farmer networks: Insights from Indiana. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 72(5), 463-470.
Prokopy, L. S., Floress, K., Arbuckle, J. G., Church, S. P., Eanes, F., Gao, Y., Gramig, B. M., Ranjan, P., & Singh, A. S. 2019. Adoption of agricultural conservation practices in the United States: Evidence from 35 years of quantitative literature. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 74(5), 520-534.
Ranjan, P., Church, S. P., Floress, K., & Prokopy, L. S. 2019. Synthesizing Conservation Motivations and Barriers: What Have We Learned from Qualitative Studies of Farmers’ Behaviors in the United States? Society & Natural Resources, 32(11), 1171-1199.
Read, D.J., Carroll, A., & Wainger, L.A. 2021. Exploring private land conservation non-adopters’ attendance at outreach events in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, USA. PeerJ. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.11959.
Singh, A., MacGowen, B., O’Donnell, M., Overstreet, B., Ulrich-Schad, J., Dunn, M., Klotz, H. & Prokopy, L. 2018. The influence of demonstration sites and field days on adoption of conservation practices. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 73(3): 276-283.
Stuart, D., R. Denny, M. Houser, A. Reimer, S. Marquart-Pyatt. 2018. Farmer selection of sources of information for nitrogen management in the US Midwest: Implications for environmental programs. Land Use Policy 70: 289-297.
